Int J Interact Des Manuf
DOI 10.1007/s12008-014-0227-2
ORIGINAL PAPER
Why did my car just do that? Explaining semi-autonomous driving
actions to improve driver understanding, trust, and performance
Jeamin Koo · Jungsuk Kwac · Wendy Ju · Martin Steinert ·
Larry Leifer · Clifford Nass
Received: 12 February 2014 / Accepted: 24 March 2014
© Springer-Verlag France 2014
Abstract This study explores, in the context of semiautonomous driving, how the content of the verbalized message accompanying the car’s autonomous action affects the
driver’s attitude and safety performance. Using a driving
simulator with an auto-braking function, we tested different messages that provided advance explanation of the
car’s imminent autonomous action. Messages providing only
“how” information describing actions (e.g., “The car is braking”) led to poor driving performance, whereas “why” information describing reasoning for actions (e.g., “Obstacle
ahead”) was preferred by drivers and led to better driving
performance. Providing both “how and why” resulted in the
safest driving performance but increased negative feelings
in drivers. These results suggest that, to increase overall
safety, car makers need to attend not only to the design of
autonomous actions but also to the right way to explain these
actions to the drivers.
Keywords Semi-autonomous driving · Feedforward
alerts · Car–driver interaction
J. Koo (B) · W. Ju · L. Leifer
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Center for Design
Research, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
J. Kwac
Department of Electric Engineering, Stanford University,
Stanford, CA, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
M. Steinert
Department of Engineering Design and Materials, Norwegian
University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
C. Nass
Department of Communication, Stanford University,
Stanford, CA, USA
1 Introduction
Cars are starting to make decisions on our behalf. Functionalities that take over control from drivers such as adaptive cruise
control, lane keeping, and self-parking systems are readily available from almost every auto manufacturer. Google
is currently prototyping the operation of fully autonomous
driving vehicles on public roads in the USA [1], and US
states such as California, Nevada, Florida, and Michigan
have started to approve a driving license for autonomous cars
under new laws and regulations [2,3].
As autonomous driving capabilities become increasingly
widespread, state-of-the-art sensing, vision, and control technologies will enable cars to detect and monitor every object
around the car, relying on real-time object measurements.
Additionally, in-vehicle information technology will be fully
capable of delivering both external (terrain) and internal
(machine) information about the car to a driver inside the
cabin.
Connected cars, which are networked to traffic sensory
and online information about road conditions, will transform
the ways we perform in the driver’s seat.
Given these dramatic changes in the user experience,
designers are challenged to model appropriate ways of conveying necessary and timely information to the driver. Typical human–machine interactions focus on alerting the driver
to the actions of the car with an in-vehicle warning system.
Designers should review and reassess the interaction between
car and driver.
Over the last hundred years of automobile history, primary control for driving has always belonged to a human
driver. Despite a great many innovations in the powertrain
domain—gasoline and diesel fuels, automatic transmission,
electric and hybrid propulsion, etc.—human hands and feet
have always remained in contact with the steering wheel and
123
Int J Interact Des Manuf
the pedals, the means of controlling the car. Cars that drive
themselves, however, allow drivers to forgo physical manipulation of the steering wheel and pedals. This is a big departure
from the driving paradigm of the last century. In this new era
of control delegation, there is a compelling need for designers to observe this phenomenon from the perspective of the
human driver. Hence, our research adopts a user-centered
method towards designing autonomous car interactions; it is
important that the design of autonomous car behaviors should
be informed by and tested against studies of human behavior in the driving context. As Norman states [4], “We must
design our technologies for the way people actually behave,
not the way we would like them to behave.” By running controlled studies of driver response to vehicle interactions, we
are better able to predict user behavior.
1.1 Importance of automation representation
The challenge of designing automation is to better understand
how the automation interacts with the human operator, and
how the system’s operational information is best delivered to
the operator. Feedback plays an important role in car–driver
interactions. As many researchers observe, systems typically
lack the essential concept of “feedback” to let operators know
what actions are occurring. Norman points out that the central
problems in conveying the information are inadequate interaction and inappropriate feedback from the car (machine)
to human (operator) [5]. Stanton and Young emphasize that
feedback from the automated system is required to keep the
driver up to date, and that feedback is one of the essential features when designing a semi-autonomous driver-supported
system [6–8]. But feedback alone is not sufficient: without
proper context, abstraction, and integration, feedback may
not be understandable to the driver [9]. Enhanced feedback
and representation can help prevent the problems associated
with inadequate feedback, which range from driver mistrust
to lack of driver awareness and difficulty in recovering from
errors.
Our approach takes a different angle on providing information to drivers. The nature of feedback is to inform users
of the direct outcome of the system’s action. However, in
autonomous driving scenarios, we claim that it is crucial to
provide information to drivers ahead of the event (Fig. 1).
Such “feedforward” information allows the driver to respond
appropriately to the situation and to gain trust that the car is
taking control for a good reason.
1.2 Understanding the user scenario
As human drivers relinquish their control over the car, it
becomes increasingly important to understand how drivers,
as users, perceive and accept the intelligent automated function. Imagine, for example, when a car senses obstacles and
123
“Feedforward”
alerts of upcoming event
t1
Driving Event
“Feedback”
explains past event
t2
Fig. 1 The timing of the alert occurrence in a driving situation
is about to brake automatically. On the one hand, the system could provide an alert regarding how the car is going
to act. On the other hand, the system could supply information about why the car is going to perform that action. For
instance, the warning could be “Car is braking” or “Obstacle
ahead.” The first message conveys the operational behavior
that the car is about to initiate, whereas the second message conveys the driving context (environment) that the car
is about to encounter. From a user perspective, the driver
may be interested in both types of information: how the car
will behave (longitudinally or laterally) and why the car is
behaving that way.
Therefore, a key design question arises here: When it
comes to informing drivers about impending autonomous
behavior, how should we generate appropriate messages
explaining the machine’s intelligence and intention? The
overarching goal of this paper is to explore user response to
cars that communicate their automated action to the driver in
different ways. In a simulation of diverse driving conditions,
we deliver differently designed messages and then assess the
consequences of the message design on driver attitude and
performance.
Essentially, our design method is to develop vehicle
interface and interaction designs that embody competing
hypotheses for what will positively or negatively affect user
perception and behavior, and to test these prototype designs
in a simulator or controlled driving setting.
2 Method
2.1 Experiment overview
Our study explored two types of feedforward information:
how the car is acting (what automated activity it is undertaking) and why the car is acting that way, as well as a combination of how and why messages. We employed a two-by-two
between-participants experimental design (Table 1).
Within this study structure, we determined whether
drivers benefit from the car explaining its actions instead
of merely acting without explanation. In the experiment, the
autonomous action consisted of the car automatically braking
to prevent impending collision. In these situations, a voice
Int J Interact Des Manuf
Table 1 Structure of the study: 2 (cars telling why: yes/no) × 2 (cars
telling how: yes/no)
How message
Without how
message
Why message
Without why
message
Both internal and external
information referring to
automation
External (situation)
information
Internal (car activity)
information
No information
(control condition)
alert informed the driver of the car’s imminent autonomous
behavior. We tested three different message designs:
1. How message: Information about how the car is acting,
announcing the automated action the car is initiating. In
our experiment, this message was, “Car is braking.”
2. Why message: Situational information explaining the reason for engaging automation: “Obstacle ahead.”
3. How + why message: Alert of how the car is acting and
why the car is making those actions: “Car is braking due
to obstacle ahead.”
We assessed driver attitudes and safety performance to
learn how different types of information affect the driver.
The study consisted of two driving simulator sessions
(training and data runs) for each participant, lasting approximately half an hour in total. After completing each driving
session, participants answered an online questionnaire. The
entire study was conducted in one room at Stanford University where both the driving simulator and the computers with
the online questionnaire were located.
2.2 Participants
Sixty-four university students (32 males and 32 females,
gender-balanced across each condition) with valid driver’s
licenses were recruited to participate in the study for course
credit. They were aged 18–27 (M = 21.11, S D = 1.42) and
had between two and ten years (M = 4.99, S D = 1.55) of
driving experience. All participants gave informed consent
and were debriefed after the experiment.
2.3 Apparatus
We used a driving simulation called STISIM from Systems
Technology, Inc., which has been used for previous driving
studies conducted by the Communication Between Humans
and Interactive Media (CHIMe) Lab at Stanford University
[10,11]. Physically, the simulator consists of a half-cut modified Ford Mustang equipped with a gas pedal and brake, a
force-feedback steering wheel, and a driver’s seat. During
the experiment, the simulated driving course was run on lab
Fig. 2 Overview of the driving simulation setup
computers and projected onto three rear-projection screens
(each 2.5 m diagonal) angled so that the driver had a 160◦
field of view (Fig. 2). The same simulator setup was used for
both the training course and the main driving course.
For the purpose of this experiment, we built and programmed an auto-braking function in the simulator and
designed it to brake automatically in impending collision
situations. Thus, the car was able to take control from the
driver and decelerate when responding to unexpected circumstances that required emergency braking, such as an obstacle
on the road or a pedestrian jaywalking. The participants were
informed that the automated function would activate only for
the purpose of safety support. To minimize effects caused by
the lack of motion feedback that would exist in a real driving
situation, a braking sound was simultaneously provided as a
cue of decelerating action every time the braking force was
applied. Additionally, to better simulate the driving experience, force feedback on the brake pedal was generated in
proportion to the brake pressure. These two features acted as
physical proxy for braking action.
The 12-km driving course incorporated urban, suburban,
and highway sections, and featured stop signs and traffic signals. The course included several hazards, traffic variations,
environmental scenery, and changing driving conditions to
mimic an actual difficult driving experience. Speed limit varied over the course from 30 miles per hour in urban areas to
65 miles per hour on the highway. The course was specifically
designed to avoid motion sickness in participants.
In the experiment, whenever an unexpected challenge
appeared on the course, the voice warning and/or auto braking was generated. For example, as soon as debris or a jaywalker suddenly appeared in the middle of the road, the car
responded to the unexpected event by generating a voice alert
and applying the brake for the driver. For the voice alert, a
standard American accent with no particular mood or inflection was employed, and the alert’s latency time of response to
123
Int J Interact Des Manuf
the automated braking was approximately one second. Participants were informed that the alerts were intended to signal
the car’s autonomous action.
2.4 Limitations
One limitation of our study lies in the use of the simulator.
Although it provides a reliable method for manipulating
the experiment and a safe environment for testing stillexperimental autonomous driving technology, there is a fair
amount of difference in fidelity between the simulation and
real-life driving. Conducting driving research in real traffic
and road conditions would increase the reliability and validity of the data with regard to both attitudes and performance.
Second, the sample group is limited demographically: Participants are university students less than 30 years old. A
wider range of participants—including newer drivers as well
as elderly drivers with longer experience but possibly slower
perception and reaction times—could yield an opportunity to
more broadly generalize our findings or to produce different
findings.
2.5 Procedure
Participants came to the driving simulator lab and, prior to
driving, were given a brief description of the driving environment and signed an approved human subject consent form.
After being acclimated to the simulator by driving 5 min on a
practice course, participants drove for approximately 30 min
on a 12-km test course. Participants were advised to drive
safely and to obey traffic regulations such as speed limits,
traffic lights, stop signs, etc. After completing the driving
course, participants filled out an online questionnaire that
assessed their overall driving experience and their reactions
to dealing with the warning system. All participants were
debriefed at the end of the experimental session.
which implies that each set of items is closely related as a
group.
The emotional valence index reflects responses to the
question, “How well do the following words describe how
you felt while driving?” The index was generated by averaging responses to the adjectives “anxious,” “annoyed,”
and “frustrated” (Cronbach’s α = 0.77). This index was
reversely coded so that higher scores were associated with a
more positive emotional response.
The machine acceptance index reflects responses to the
question, “How well do the following adjectives describe
the car?” The index was generated by averaging responses
to four adjectives: “intelligent,” “helpful,” “dominant,” and
“reliable” (α = 0.73).
2.6.2 Behavioral measures
Safe driving behavior was objectively assessed by analyzing data collected from the driving simulator, including the
following six items: collisions, speeding incidents, traffic
light violations, stop signs missed, road edge excursions, and
driving time.
3 Results
3.1 Driver attitudinal response
Emotional valence. Figure 3 depicts the analysis of the
emotional valence index. A significant interaction effect
emerged between two independent variables, the why and
how messages, F(1, 60) = 5.90, p < 0.001. In the con-
2.6 Dependent variables
2.6.1 Attitudinal measures
Attitudinal measures were based on self-reported data on
adjective items in the post-drive online questionnaire, and the
order of the list of adjectives was randomized every time a
new survey was run. The questionnaires were adapted from
a published model from the CHIMe Lab at Stanford University that is used to measure driver attitude [10,11], with
participants ranking each item on a ten-point Likert scale
ranging from “Describes Very Poorly (=1)” to “Describes
Very Well (=10).” With the self-reported rating scale, two
indices, “emotional valence” and “machine acceptance,”
were created by averaging participants’ ranking of adjectives.
Both indices were tested for reliability using Cronbach’s α,
123
Fig. 3 Drivers’ emotional valence. Y -axis corresponds to the mean
value of the index, and a higher score indicates a more positive attitudinal response
Int J Interact Des Manuf
Fig. 4 Machine acceptance. Y -axis corresponds to the mean value of
“machine acceptance,” and a higher score indicates greater trust in the
automated system
text of auto-braking actions, people felt least positive about
the how message when it was accompanied with the why
(M = 15.57, S D = 7.16). They showed the most positive valence emotions when the how message was excluded
(M = 11.75, S D = 4.57).
Machine acceptance. Figure 4 illustrates the analysis of
driver acceptance of the automated system. There was a significant main effect from the independent variable, the why
message, F(1, 60) = 4.79, p < 0.05. Drivers expressed
greater system acceptance with messages that provided information about the driving environment (M = 24.32, S D =
4.35) than with messages that did not provide information
about the driving environment (M = 21.35, S D = 5.95).
3.2 Driving behavior
Among various safe-driving performance measures, the only
significant effect was upon the road edge excursions.
Figure 5 shows the correlation between the type of alert
and road edge excursions. There was a significant interaction effect between the type of message and this measure
of driving performance, F(1, 60) = 6.92, p < 0.01. When
participants were not told the how message, the why made
no difference. When participants were told the how message
without the why, they drove worse (M = 2.81, S D = 1.68).
Their safest driving performance was when they had both
how and why messages (M = 1.06, S D = 0.92).
4 Discussion
Results show that, in a semi-autonomous driving situation,
the type of car-to-driver communication about the car’s
Fig. 5 Unsafe driving behavior. Y -axis indicates the number of road
edge excursions
impending actions (how information and/or why information)
has a significant effect upon drivers’ attitudes and behavior.
4.1 Information that conveys machine behavior and
situational reasoning: the how + why message
Initially, we hypothesized that people would prefer the
how+why message and that it would improve driving behavior. Our rationale was based on by the well-known fact that
users in the traditional realm of human–machine/computer
interaction are typically more comfortable being informed
of the system’s operating status when the information also
conveys the reason for operating actions. In our study, surprisingly, car-to-driver communication that conveyed both
the car’s actions and the reason for those automated actions
affected driver attitude negatively. When people were told
both how and why the car was about to act on their behalf,
they felt anxious.
Now we understand that our hypothesis was based on
insufficient consideration of the driving context. Imagine one
scenario: a car gives you a vocal alert saying, “Car is slowing
down because of obstacles ahead!” At this moment, the driver
must process two types of information: the machine’s status
and the situational status. Then the driver wonders, “What
should I think about first?” As a consequence, it is difficult
for the driver to determine what must be comprehended and
responded to. With overloaded input, the driver could easily
misunderstand signals. We believe that the how+why message, which creates the greatest cognitive load of the four
experimental conditions, may be too much information to
123
Int J Interact Des Manuf
process while driving. The multiple simultaneous messages
cause confusion and lead to an increased anxiety level.
Reeves and Nass, in their Media Equation theory [12],
argue that too much or too little information may devalue
the content of communication. The result of this problem of
quantity is user frustration. One solution they proposed is
to use properly abbreviated messages that both parties have
prior agreement on. We call this “concurred abbreviation.”
In signal detection theory, there is the concept of the
receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC). The concept is
that possibilities of mis-alarm (delivering an untimely signal)
and false alarm (delivering the wrong signal) are increased
when multiple alerts occur simultaneously [13]. In contrast to
desktop computer scenarios, driving requires a quick reaction
time to determine what is happening and respond to changes
in the environmental situation. Thus, by making drivers rely
on overloaded perception and cognition, complex signals
can easily make drivers misread timely information, causing increased anxiety. This notion supports our finding that
the combined how+why alert can cause negative effects.
Even though it was perceived negatively by drivers, the
combined how+why message contributed to safer driving by
minimizing off-lane excursions. By providing both the situational and operational contexts, the combined message helps
drivers to maintain responsibility for controlling the vehicle
when manual and autonomous controls co-exist. This fact
underscores an important lesson for designers: the consumer
appeal of the product does not always correlate with high performance and satisfaction in actual use. We should anticipate
a potential design trade-off between attitudinal preferences
and driving safety.
4.2 Information that conveys only machine behavior
(automation-centered communication): the how
message
The message reporting only the machine behavior caused
drivers to perform the worst: drivers tended to drift out of
their lane. This suggests that the how message, manifested
as indicating the explicit behavior of the car such as “Car is
braking,” reinforces the idea that the responsibility over the
car is held by the automated system, not the driver. The driver
then tends to take a passive role, adopting the notion that “I
don’t have to react because the car will act on my behalf.”
This finding can be explained by the concept of “locus
of control”: whether drivers feel that they (an internal determinant) or the automated system (an external determinant)
are mainly responsible for the behavior of the vehicle [6].
Even though the car was only responsible for braking, the
how message that created an external locus of control might
have led a driver to assume a passive position relative to the
automated system. As a result, this passive role caused the
driver to fail to maintain a sense of control even over steer-
123
ing and lane-keeping, which led to decreased safe driving
performance. It is notable that the failure to maintain the
sense of longitudinal control had an impact on maintaining
lateral control. In semi-autonomous driving situations, the
driver and car should be seamlessly cooperative in the task
of control transfer.
Another reason that drivers performed worse when given
only the how message may have to do with situational awareness. The natural sequence of a driver’s process is to perceive
first, then react. In our study frame, the how explanation
causes drivers to remain in a cognitive state of uncertainty:
“Okay, I understand that this car is going to slow down for
safety purposes, but why exactly?”
Endsley’s model [14,15] is often cited to explain the concept of situation awareness (SA). In his definition, SA is
the ability to perceive the related elements of the environment, to comprehend the given situation, and to anticipate
the future status. This notion of SA is a crucial component
in safe driving. We can surmise that the lack of situational
reasoning in the how message explains why people drove
unsafely under the how-only message.
Why would the how message, delivered without why
information, have a negative effect on situation awareness
in driving? Although the how-only alert was not as disliked
as much as the combined how+ why message, drivers still
didn’t like the how-only alert. Perhaps this reaction stems
from the idea that it is inconsiderate to provide messages
that don’t help the user know what to do.
In seeking better communication models between humans
and machines, Reeves and Nass accentuate that designing
polite machines is important because we humans are polite
to machines, and if the machine’s behavior fails to be polite
in return, the failure is considered offensive [12]. Explaining
the car’s behavior, “Car is braking,” without explaining the
reason may be “impolite” even though it is accurate. The
driver might get nervous not because the information was
inaccurate but because the message was not helpful.
An alternative explanation for why the how-only message
was disliked more than the why-only message is that the how
information is redundant because it describes actions that the
car is about to take, and the very action itself is a message;
drivers might perceive the message + action as belaboring
the point unnecessarily.
4.3 Message that conveys only the situational reasoning for
automation (context-centered communication): the why
message
Our results showed that drivers preferred receiving only the
why information, which created the least anxiety (Fig. 3) and
highest trust (Fig. 4). In contrast, the combined how+why
information was the worst from a driver perspective. The
succinct why message, such as “Obstacle ahead!” includes
Int J Interact Des Manuf
information about the environment that the car is about to
encounter and offers the reasoning for the car’s imminent
actions.
This finding supports Reeves’ and Nass’s idea proposing to use properly abbreviated messages agreed upon by
two parties [12]. As long as the succinct why message is
well understood beforehand to encompass the occurrence of
the car’s autonomous action (concurred abbreviation), we
designers may be able to enhance the car–driver relationship.
The amount of time that it takes to hear and cognitively
process the why-only message is roughly the same as it takes
the process the how-only message. The fact that performance
and attitude are better in this condition suggests that the why
message is more salient and that people process it quicker. For
optimal driver response, there should be a balance between
processing time and the information being processed. Information overload affects data quality. On the road, drivers continuously cycle through the information process of perceive–
comprehend–anticipate. Drivers may find the data valuable
and credible when the data content satisfies their cognitive
need. For this reason, the why alert is more important to
drivers and safer because drivers can anticipate upcoming
events; the back-channel why cue helps drivers coordinate
their reaction to the situation. As a consequence, the why message provides a useful way to enhance the interaction between
the driver and the in-vehicle information system. These findings are consistent with previous research by Young and Stanton [16].
5 Conclusion
This research suggests an interaction model for cars to communicate with the human driver in the context of semiautonomous driving. When autonomous driving coexists
with manual driving, safety still demands high attention from
the human operator. The main design lesson is the importance of providing the appropriate amount and kind of information to the driver. Too much information overwhelms
the driver, even when the information is helpful to performance. The wrong kind of information can add to cognitive
load or decrease the driver’s sense of responsibility for the
driving performance. When the possibility of transfer of control exists between the human driver and the car, the how-only
message confuses the human operator about who is responsible, thereby causing unsafe driving behavior.
In summary:
1. Why information maintains good driving performance
and is preferred by drivers.
2. How information without why information leads to dangerous driving performance.
3. How+why information can bother drivers but leads to the
safest driving performance.
We conclude that both how and why information are
needed for critical safety situations. Although including the
reason for the car’s behavior can incur a negative emotional
response, it improves safety performance. Alternatively, the
why message provides a moderate amount of information
without causing a negative emotional reaction. The why-only
message might be optimal when the car knows it is in a nonsafety-critical situation.
Acknowledgments We thank Nissan Motor Cooperation, Japan, for
supporting this research.
References
1. Bilger, B.: Has the self-driving car at last arrived? The New
Yorker (2013). http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/11/25/
131125fa_fact_bilger?currentPage=all. Accessed 5 Feb 2014
2. DMV News Release (2012). http://www.dmvnv.com/news/
12005-autonomous-vehicle-licensed.htm. Accessed 4 Feb 2014
3. DMV News Release (2014). http://www.dmv.com/blog/
self-driving-car-regulations. Accessed 4 Feb 2014
4. Norman, D.: The Design of Future Things. Basic Books, New York
(2007)
5. Norman, D.: The ‘problem’ with automation: inappropriate feedback and interaction, not ‘over- automation’. Philos. Trans. R. Soc.
Lond. Ser. B Biol. Sci. 327(1241), 585–593 (1990)
6. Stanton, N.A., Young, M.S.: Vehicle automation and driving performance. Ergonomics 41(7), 1014–1028 (1998)
7. Walker, G.H., Stanton, N.A., Young, M.S.: The ironies of vehicle
feedback in car design. Ergonomics 49(2), 161–179 (2006)
8. Wiese, E.E., Lee, J.D.: Attention grounding: a new approach to invehicle information system implementation. Theor. Issues Ergon.
Sci. 8(3), 255–276 (2007)
9. Lee, J.D., Seppelt, B.D.: Human Factors in Automation Design,
Handbook of Automation, pp. 417–436 (2009)
10. Takayama, L., Nass, C.: Assessing the effectiveness of interactive
media in improving drowsy driving safety. Hum. Factors 50(5),
772–781 (2008)
11. Takayama, L., Nass, C.: Driver safety and information from afar:
an experimental driver simulator study of wireless vs. in-car information services. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 66(3), 173–184 (2008)
12. Reeves, B., Nass, C.: The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television, and News Media like Real People and Places.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1996)
13. Parasuraman, R., Anthony, J.M., Peter, A.H.: Fuzzy signal detection theory: basic postulates and formulas for analyzing human and
machine performance. Hum. Factors 42(4), 636–659 (2000)
14. Endsley, M.R.: Measurement of situation awareness in dynamic
systems. Hum. Factors 37, 65–84 (1995)
15. Endsley, M.R.: Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic
systems. Hum. Factors 37, 32–64 (1995)
16. Young, M.S., Stanton, N.A.: Mental workload: theory, measurement and application. In: Karwowski, W. (ed.) International Encyclopedia of Ergonomics and Human Factors, vol. 1, pp. 507–509.
Taylor and Francis, London (2001)
123